Monitoring and Evaluation group discussion- Held on Tuesday September 28th 2010
Participants: Tilahun Amede - Pamela Pali - Kifle Abegaz - Sophie Alvarez Pre- discussion: seeing that there were only 4 of us (from CPWF, ILRI (2) and CRS), we started by wondering (even if we were not too surprised) why there was so little interest in the M&E topic. That took us to:
1 WHO ARE The M&E People In Projects?
There is a suggestion that we need a monitoring and evaluation person (or persons) from each of projects N2, N3 and N4. We discussed the ‘formation’ of this group needed to deal with M&E issues in projects and in the NDBC by extension. Quickly we realized that we need a better definition of who these people would be, and what they will do. What is it that ‘dealing with M&E’ will be about?
The role of the M&E team in CPWF
Structure we DON’T want for the group
Structure we would like to see for the group
The first diagram is a scenario that shows how we wouldn’t want the group of monitoring and evaluation facilitators to work: one ‘assigned person’ learns to use the workbooks, the framework, and is delegated to develop indicators, collect data, upgrade workbook and worksheets who then reports to N5 monitoring and evaluation team (Jemimah, Pamela and Tilahun) following a designated reporting line. Although this (but including the PLs between the project M&E contact person and Pamela) is the formal reporting flow, this is not the way to accomplish true reflexive M&E. The second figure shows something closer to what we envision as the M&E ‘group’ or ‘task force’ within the NBDC: a group closer to a ‘community of practice’ where learning in all topics of M&E happens and then goes to inform formal reports.
2 TOR for the learning group and possible areas of interaction
v Development of indicators: how can we, in a participative manner, develop the outcome, output and activities indicators it makes sense to monitor for the projects? For the NBDC? Which can we ‘share’ across projects? This includes baseline development and discussions on ways to ‘measure’ KAS (knowledge, attitude and skills) changes, how to ‘document perceptions’, as well as well- known and other, more innovative, tools for developing and measuring indicators. v Data collection: who, when, how do we collect the M&E data? What collection instances can we share and thus optimize across projects. They shall be guided by the monitoring and evaluation framework? v Reflection, and preparation of reflection sessions and reports: how do we achieve better reflection? What cultural factors do we take into account for carrying out reflection? How and when should reflection happen- can we contribute to reflection in our day-to day work? How? How are reflection and reflection meetings facilitated? v Knowledge sharing and M&E: where does the work of the KS team and ours cross? How can we benefit from KS tools and knowledge in the basin to achieve better monitoring and assessment of our progress towards outcomes in projects? How can we do M&E of the knowledge sharing processes, and how can we do knowledge sharing of our M&E processes? Process documentation: what are we learning as we do this? How do we document and share our learning? v Capacity building: we can use the group as a platform to build in-project capacities in all aspects of M&E (development of indicators, data collection and tools and methods, facilitation of participatory processes, use of OLMs and workbooks, etc.) We can also exchange knowledge about the projects themselves, to learn better ways of following their progress. After dreaming for a while about our M&E group (and we also discussed a name for ourselves- the Learners? Suggestions welcome on any of this!), we got down to M&E business and looked at and discussed the workbooks and the M&E framework of indicators that Pamela is developing with projects. How do they fit together? How do we make the whole system ‘assailable’, and how do we share with the group that it is, in reality, a fairly straightforward process of KEEPING OUR OUTCOMES in mind as we do research. It’s all about finding ways to ‘keep our eye on the ball’ and learning. Pamela presented some of the support she will be giving projects with their indicators, data collection and tools, how they shall fit in with the reflection by CPWF 5.
3 Finally- FORWARD! What is next?
1. Organized and invited all to an open meeting in the Zebu at 5:30, in case some of the project participants wanted to join the discussion. 2. We will come up with due dates to develop indicators, discuss tools 3. Thursday the presentation on M&E will include some of these issues 4. We hope to open some spaces, and will discuss with Peter and Nadia, to start building the group by asking project leaders to suggest names 5. Both Pamela and Sophie will arrange meeting with project individually to get their requests for support, and advance the process of inception reporting, workbook updating and indicator development.
Progress to date on refined M&e framework.8th November 2010
Table of Contents
Monitoring and Evaluation group discussion- Held on Tuesday September 28th 2010
Participants: Tilahun Amede - Pamela Pali - Kifle Abegaz - Sophie Alvarez
Pre- discussion: seeing that there were only 4 of us (from CPWF, ILRI (2) and CRS), we started by wondering (even if we were not too surprised) why there was so little interest in the M&E topic. That took us to:
1 WHO ARE The M&E People In Projects?
There is a suggestion that we need a monitoring and evaluation person (or persons) from each of projects N2, N3 and N4. We discussed the ‘formation’ of this group needed to deal with M&E issues in projects and in the NDBC by extension. Quickly we realized that we need a better definition of who these people would be, and what they will do. What is it that ‘dealing with M&E’ will be about?The first diagram is a scenario that shows how we wouldn’t want the group of monitoring and evaluation facilitators to work: one ‘assigned person’ learns to use the workbooks, the framework, and is delegated to develop indicators, collect data, upgrade workbook and worksheets who then reports to N5 monitoring and evaluation team (Jemimah, Pamela and Tilahun) following a designated reporting line. Although this (but including the PLs between the project M&E contact person and Pamela) is the formal reporting flow, this is not the way to accomplish true reflexive M&E.
The second figure shows something closer to what we envision as the M&E ‘group’ or ‘task force’ within the NBDC: a group closer to a ‘community of practice’ where learning in all topics of M&E happens and then goes to inform formal reports.
2 TOR for the learning group and possible areas of interaction
v Development of indicators: how can we, in a participative manner, develop the outcome, output and activities indicators it makes sense to monitor for the projects? For the NBDC? Which can we ‘share’ across projects? This includes baseline development and discussions on ways to ‘measure’ KAS (knowledge, attitude and skills) changes, how to ‘document perceptions’, as well as well- known and other, more innovative, tools for developing and measuring indicators.v Data collection: who, when, how do we collect the M&E data? What collection instances can we share and thus optimize across projects. They shall be guided by the monitoring and evaluation framework?
v Reflection, and preparation of reflection sessions and reports: how do we achieve better reflection? What cultural factors do we take into account for carrying out reflection? How and when should reflection happen- can we contribute to reflection in our day-to day work? How? How are reflection and reflection meetings facilitated?
v Knowledge sharing and M&E: where does the work of the KS team and ours cross? How can we benefit from KS tools and knowledge in the basin to achieve better monitoring and assessment of our progress towards outcomes in projects? How can we do M&E of the knowledge sharing processes, and how can we do knowledge sharing of our M&E processes? Process documentation: what are we learning as we do this? How do we document and share our learning?
v Capacity building: we can use the group as a platform to build in-project capacities in all aspects of M&E (development of indicators, data collection and tools and methods, facilitation of participatory processes, use of OLMs and workbooks, etc.) We can also exchange knowledge about the projects themselves, to learn better ways of following their progress.
After dreaming for a while about our M&E group (and we also discussed a name for ourselves- the Learners? Suggestions welcome on any of this!), we got down to M&E business and looked at and discussed the workbooks and the M&E framework of indicators that Pamela is developing with projects. How do they fit together? How do we make the whole system ‘assailable’, and how do we share with the group that it is, in reality, a fairly straightforward process of KEEPING OUR OUTCOMES in mind as we do research. It’s all about finding ways to ‘keep our eye on the ball’ and learning. Pamela presented some of the support she will be giving projects with their indicators, data collection and tools, how they shall fit in with the reflection by CPWF 5.
3 Finally- FORWARD! What is next?
1. Organized and invited all to an open meeting in the Zebu at 5:30, in case some of the project participants wanted to join the discussion.2. We will come up with due dates to develop indicators, discuss tools
3. Thursday the presentation on M&E will include some of these issues
4. We hope to open some spaces, and will discuss with Peter and Nadia, to start building the group by asking project leaders to suggest names
5. Both Pamela and Sophie will arrange meeting with project individually to get their requests for support, and advance the process of inception reporting, workbook updating and indicator development.
Progress to date on refined M&e framework.8th November 2010
(Jemimah Njuki)